Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad V. M/s Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., Hyderabad

ITA 322/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 32222514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Additional depreciation; Bonafide belief; Wrong claim; Tax effect; Onus to prove; Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 322/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERABAD. VS. M/S EXENSYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AACCS8462M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI B. KURMI NAIDU ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM DATE OF HEARING 12-10-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27-10-2015 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 20/12/2013 OF LD. CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD, WHEREBY CA NCELLING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (ACT) BY THE AO, FOR THE AY 2009-10. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE SOFTWARE BUSINESS AND FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ADMITTING NIL INCOME. LATE R, IT FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 24/08/10 ADMITTING NIL INCOME U NDER NORMAL PROVISION AND RS. 1,21,03,661 UNDER M.A.T. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND AO PASSED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 16/12/2011 ASSESSING THE TOTAL LOSS AD MITTED BY ASSESSEE AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO. 322 /HYD/2014 M/S EXENSYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. LOSS ADMITTED AS PER RETURN OF INCOME RS. 22,76,7 7,589 LESS: EXCESS DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED RS. 19,99,56, 403 LOSS REVISED RS. 2,77,21,186 ============== 2.1 WITH REGARD TO THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE ON EX CESS DEPRECIATION, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY AO THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED HIGHER DEPR ECIATION ON SOFTWARE @ 60% AND ON SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT @ 100%. OBSERVING THAT ANY PURCHASE OR DEVELOPMENT MADE ON SOFTWARE C OMES UNDER INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS @ 25% ONLY, AO REWORKED OUT THE ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND ARRIVED THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE AT RS. 19,99,56,403. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GO IN APPEAL AGA INST THE QUANTUM ADDITION BECAUSE IT STATED THAT FIRSTLY THERE WAS NO TAX EFFECT AND SECONDLY THERE WAS ONLY A BONA FIDE ERROR IN CLAIMI NG THE PERCENTAGE OF DEPRECIATION. 2.2 THEREAFTER, AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/ S 271(1)(C) AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) DATED 3 0/12/2011 WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 27/06/12 STATING THEREIN THAT IT HAD C LAIMED THE DEPRECIATION ON HIGHER RATE ON CAPITALIZATION OF SO FTWARE DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN TH E INTERPRETATION OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE H AD NOT CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. ACC ORDINGLY, ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN ITIATED U/S 271(1)(C). HOWEVER, REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF A SSESSEE, AO OBSERVED THAT BY CLAIMING DEPRECIATION AT 100% IN R ESPECT OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND 60% IN RESPECT OF SOFTWARE WAS PATE NTLY WRONG AND INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES E XPLANATION THAT HE 3 ITA NO. 322 /HYD/2014 M/S EXENSYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. HAS FILED ALL PARTICULARS AND HENCE NOT FURNISHED I NACCURATE PARTICULARS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDINGLY HE LEVIED A MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS. 6,79,65,180 U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSE E STATED THAT IT HAD DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND THERE WAS NO INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM OUTSIDE BY AO. FURTHER, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ERROR IN DEPRECIATION WAS ONLY IN RESPECT OF PE RCENTAGE CLAIM. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE BECAU SE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT IS INCREASINGLY BEING RECOGNIZED AS A R EVENUE EXPENDITURE BY VARIOUS COURTS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND ANALYZING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WITH CASE LAWS, CANCELLED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.6 COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLA NT, IT IS SEEN THAT DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN CLAIMED AT A HIGHER RATE ON SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THE MISTAKE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND POINTED IT OUT TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT AGREED TO THE LOWER CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND DID NOT CONTEST THE ADDITION IN APPEAL. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THERE ARE HUGE ACCUMULATED LOSSES WHICH ARE BEING CARRIED FO RWARD BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION IN QUESTION DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TAXABLE INCOME. 4.7 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CASE ENTAILS THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, THE CONDUCT AND THE LEVEL OF DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAS TO BE EXAMINED. REGARDING THE CONDUCT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WHEREIN AN I NCOME OF RS. 1.21 CRORE WAS DISCLOSED UNDER MAT AND TAXES WERE PAID ON TH IS INCOME. FURTHER, THE ENTIRE DETAILS HAD BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE WAS CLEARLY PROVIDED AND THE CLAIM OF DEP RECIATION WAS ALSO GIVEN CLEARLY IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT IS FROM T HESE DOCUMENTS ONLY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ABLE TO FIND OUT THAT TH E CLAIM WAS ON A HIGHER PERCENTAGE. IN OTHER WORDS, A PROPER DISCLOSURE HA D BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND NOTHING HAD BEEN CONCEALED. THEREAFT ER ONCE THE MISTAKE WAS POINTED OUT, THE APPELLANT AGREED TO IT AND DI D NOT FILE ANY APPEAL. 4.8 FROM ABOVE, IT IS CLEARLY SEEN THAT THE PROPE R AND FULL DISCLOSURE HAD BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE HIGHER PERC ENTAGE CLAIMED IN DEPRECIATION WAS ONLY A BONE FIDE ERROR WHICH WAS CORRECTED BY THE APPELLANT. IN ANY CASE, THERE WAS NO TAX DUE EVEN AFTER THE CORRECTION OF THE ERROR. THEREFORE, APPLYING THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE LAW I FIND THAT THIS 4 ITA NO. 322 /HYD/2014 M/S EXENSYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. T HE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CANCELLI NG THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY AO U/S 271(1)(C), THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY THOUGH S PER EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C), THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENA LTY BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM WAS FOUND TO BE FALSE W ITH RESPECT TO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 7. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED REV ISED RETURN OF INCOME ONLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE HIGHER DEPRECIATION IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE ADDITIONAL TAX BY FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND HENCE, THIS IS DONE DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY. HE RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMADABAD IN CASE OF ITO VS. GEEP INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD., WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 22. WE HENCE HOLD THAT PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF I NCOME IS IMPOSABLE IN RESPECT OF THE CONCEALMENT OF RS. 2,1 4,364 ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, AS MADE BY ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT THAT MINIMUM PENALTY MAY BE IMPOSED. 8. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BO NAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE SOFTWARE COMES UNDER COMPUTER AND ACCORDIN GLY CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION. FOR THE CLAIM ON SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOFTWARE WERE DEVELOPED AND BECA ME REDUNDANT DUE TO NON-MARKETABILITY. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CLAIMED IT AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUT CAPITALIZED THE SAME AND C LAIMED IT AS 100% DEPRECIATION WITH THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT IT CAN BE CLAIMED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ONLY DIFFERENCE OF OPINIO N AND NOT FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT O F HONBLE AP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S TAHER ALI INDUSTRIES & PRO JECTS LTD. IN ITA NO. 128 OF 2014, DTD. 04/03/2014. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF REV ENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT A HIGHER RATE ON 5 ITA NO. 322 /HYD/2014 M/S EXENSYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND AO FOUND THE MISTAKE DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND POINTED OUT TO ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE LOWER CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND DID N OT CONTEST THE ADDITION IN APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CANCELLING THE PENALTY, REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF ASSESSEE, OBSERVED AS FOLL OWS: IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED A REVISED R ETURN OF INCOME WHEREIN AN INCOME OF RS. 1.21 CRORE WAS DISCLOSED UNDER MAT AND TAXES WERE PAID ON THIS INCOME. FURTHER, THE ENT IRE DETAILS HAD BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOM E AND THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE WAS CLEARLY PROVIDED AND THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS ALSO GI VEN CLEARLY IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT IS FROM THESE DOCUMENTS ONLY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ABLE TO FIND OUT THAT THE CL AIM WAS ON A HIGHER PERCENTAGE. IN OTHER WORDS, A PROPER DISCLOSURE HA D BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND NOTHING HAD BEEN CONCEALED. THEREAFT ER ONCE THE MISTAKE WAS POINTED OUT, THE APPELLANT AGREED TO I T AND DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL. 9.1 WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ARRIVED AT THE CONC LUSION CONSIDERING NON-CONCEALMENT OF INFORMATION, HE DID NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT INACCURATE FURNISHING OF INFORMATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS INACCURATE AND DELIBERATE THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON REC ORD TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM EXCEPT POINTING OUT THAT THE REVISED RETURN O F INCOME WAS FILED ONLY TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON PRESUMPTIONS RELYING ON THE JUD GMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N SHROFF VS JCIT ( 291 ITR 519) , WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FO LLOWS: 48. PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF, THEREFORE, IS ON THE R EVENUE. THE STATUTE REQUIRES SATISFACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE IS REQUIRED TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION SO AS TO SHOW THAT THERE I S PRIMARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE AMOUN T OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THIS ONUS IS TO BE DISCH ARGED BY THE DEPARTMENT. [SEE D.M. MANASVI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GU JARAT,-II [(1973) 3 SCC 207] 49. WHILE CONSIDERING AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT BEGIN WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE IS GUILTY. 6 ITA NO. 322 /HYD/2014 M/S EXENSYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. 50. ONCE THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF IS DISCHARGED, THE SECONDARY BURDEN OF PROOF WOULD SHIFT ON THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE PR OCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS OF PENAL NATURE IN THE SENSE T HAT ITS CONSEQUENCES ARE INTENDED TO BE AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT WHICH WILL PU T A STOP TO PRACTICES WHICH THE PARLIAMENT CONSIDERS TO BE AGAINST THE PU BLIC INTEREST AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH T HAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GUILTY OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. [SEE ANWAR ALI (SUPRA) AND M/S KHODAY ESWARSA (SUPRA)]. 51. THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY IS QUASI-CRIMINAL IN NATURE AND, THUS, BURDEN LIES ON THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED HIS INCOME. SINCE BURDEN OF PROOF IN PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS VARIES FROM THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, A FI NDING IN AN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THAT A PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS INCOME CANN OT AUTOMATICALLY BE ADOPTED, THOUGH A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING CONSTITUTE GOOD EVIDENCE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDING. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THUS, THE AUTHORITIES MUST CONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH AS THE QUESTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE. [SEE ANANTHARAM VEERASINGHAIAH & CO. V. C.I.T., ANDHRA PRADESH, 1980 SUPP SCC 13]. 9.2 IN THIS CONNECTION, WE REFER TO THE JUDGMENT O F THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO-PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) WHEREIN THE HONBLE C OURT HAS LAID DOWN THE LAW AS UNDER:- A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING O F THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRA CE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN TH E RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORD ER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTL Y COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVO KED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAI M TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE T HE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILI TY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RET URN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TH E TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. 7 ITA NO. 322 /HYD/2014 M/S EXENSYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT S USTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. S UCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS. 9.3 IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PROP ER AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF ITS INCOME AND THE HIGHER PERCENTAGE CLAIMED IN DEPRECIATION WAS ONLY A BONAFIDE ERROR WHICH WAS CO RRECTED BY ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT FULLY SUPPORTS AND IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY OF RS. 6,79,65,180/- LEVIED BY AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD DISMISSING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAH MAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 KV COPY TO:- 1) DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), 8 TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, ROOM NO. 826, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2) M/S EXENSYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LT.D, 8-2-684/1/1 18, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 034 3 CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-II, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 8 ITA NO. 322 /HYD/2014 M/S EXENSYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER VP 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S. 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER